Embarrassing And Detrimental

The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility proposes a public censure for disclosures made by an attorney in a motion to withdraw

This charged Rule violation arises out of the following representations in Respondent’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion to withdraw as the Client’s counsel:

[the Client] came to counsel’s office in a rude, belligerent and absolutely uncooperative manner. He showed up with a woman he said was his girlfriend. Both were loud and unruly. [The Client] declared he did not require the services of counsel and counsel agreed and told him it was his right to choose who represents him. Counsel then admonished him that whether he retains other counsel or not, he must appear at all scheduled court [sic] until his case is concluded. He said he did not need any advise [sic] or counsel, collected his deposit and left and this counsel has not heard from or seen him since nor does counsel expect to. [The Client] has neither provided the information requested nor cooperated with counsel. [The Client] has failed to cooperate making it doubly, doubly difficult if not impossible to prepare his defense and according to [the Client], he does not need the services of this or other counsel.

The board

a lawyer’s public assertions that his client was rude, belligerent and absolutely uncooperative and unruly, among other derogatory characterizations, would likely be embarrassing or detrimental to a client. Disclosures “tending to demean or belittle” a client are “contrary to the fundamental principle that the attorney owes a fiduciary duty to his client and must serve the client’s interests with the utmost loyalty and devotion.”

…Finally, Respondent’s disclosures in the motion to withdraw were not done to defend against a complaint about his representation because the Client had not yet complained about his representation. Rule 1.6(e)(3) permits the disclosure of client secrets “to the extent reasonably necessary to respond to specific allegations by the client concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client.” Respondent filed the motion to withdraw in August 2016, but the disciplinary complaint was not filed until May 2017. Thus, the Rule 1.6(e)(3) exception does not apply here.

The board also proposes rejection of the Respondent’s jurisdictional and choice of law assertions. (Mike Frisch)